Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method

Nick Harper <ietf@nharper.org> Fri, 06 November 2020 07:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C683A0E66 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 23:59:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Y3F5tcH_ndu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 23:59:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F1503A0E14 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 23:59:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kawbr-0004qp-DV for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 07:56:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2020 07:56:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kawbr-0004qp-DV@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from www-data by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <nharper@nharper.org>) id 1kawbp-0004py-GR for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 07:56:33 +0000
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <nharper@nharper.org>) id 1kapa9-0004Nj-IW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:26:21 +0000
Received: from mail-io1-f41.google.com ([209.85.166.41]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <nharper@nharper.org>) id 1kapa6-0002nF-Fy for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:26:21 +0000
Received: by mail-io1-f41.google.com with SMTP id u19so3717000ion.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 16:26:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4ATtROX7RFwI94Do3h6QUPLCFB1D6XbTKE3NGVvOvD0=; b=jcjc5EYlmO/bYZXL5GrnD3btOwplkhnSmmFmyOXE2+n0ktYjd6K0UuO5PAAWPQNoTY 83smkYpLSahb/5HJG+P4PwXdpwhawhRTpUFqZucu2yRA7FmZbVcBWLwI/t+pduJYuHpP R/PtVbZNxEsJziRb3rRYijuvWCqcYdcZt7N/zSKo5+vhX65IhEmDk+GHil10cq0zYwU2 MpDt04IcftTPclcQQRgSYRMRPCj6Z9k1V6PCpPRsQ69E0oOiR3T8mHsOKiUELnXrkMhZ vMqqOLDGkRHGWpsHPLysSdGr9U9NwhvIYchBIBsKLGIWw31rgraGG+tTRNC/SydsLRPP cj1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ZictUac7rHDVnJf3rMD2QQYaQW5i1UtNTSejj44UST4+epe6m CymFaHqB19A05hemELZ5Qc6YWtqklUyBif5we/eYp/Znqky9Uta7jKY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJySEhFESSfrzG3FrhgVwbpKYjxDlX7yJBzAECu7vkfMaxsKkaihDpKXF1jB1Jix2gpFG9G+GP2Nd9WLlL/9Apk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:1305:: with SMTP id h5mr3704298iov.41.1604622366912; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 16:26:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <F0556EC2-D5AD-47FF-A780-15949F57A911@mnot.net> <CH2PR22MB2086F6696E792E4CF7920601DAEE0@CH2PR22MB2086.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CH2PR22MB2086F6696E792E4CF7920601DAEE0@CH2PR22MB2086.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
From: Nick Harper <ietf@nharper.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 16:25:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CACcvr=mOu-_MVGKQg_5aUB=96-vRGduWDrjHEBfWnE8+=svY_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002dca3905b365424b"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.166.41; envelope-from=nharper@nharper.org; helo=mail-io1-f41.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kapa6-0002nF-Fy f254366a1ae51790899ea5da7aa28603
X-caa-id: 33960b9bba
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACcvr=mOu-_MVGKQg_5aUB=96-vRGduWDrjHEBfWnE8+=svY_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38194
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I support adoption of a general-purpose HTTP method that is safe and allows
a request body (e.g. GET with body or safe POST).

This draft provides such a method, but it is framed as bringing the
semantics of WebDAV's SEARCH method to HTTP. I am interested in a general
purpose method, not one with such specific semantics. One example of this
is in the introduction: “Unlike POST, however the semantics of the SEARCH
method are specifically defined.” If adopted, I think the Abstract and
Introduction of this draft needs to be reframed to describe that this is a
general-purpose HTTP method to allow making safe HTTP requests that contain
a request body.

If a WebDAV method name is reused for a generic HTTP use-case, one should
be able to implement and use that without needing to understand how that
method works in WebDAV. In particular, I think the special casing of XML
processing to match WebDAV should be removed if this draft is adopted.

I also agree with Ben Schwartz that there's no need to define responses to
this new method to be uncacheable. (A server could choose to respond to
requests indicating that they're not cacheable if that's the server's
desired behavior.) I'm also confused by when a conditional SEARCH request
would be made if the client doesn't do any caching.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:45 AM Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote:

> I support adopting this draft, and will read and provide feedback.  There
> is
> interest at Akamai for being able to identify safe POSTs and better manage
> cacheability of the results, especially as it relates to GraphQL.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 8:07 PM
> To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
> Subject: Call for Adoption: SEARCH method
>
> As discussed in the October 202 Interim, this is a Call for Adoption for
> the
> HTTP SEARCH method draft:
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-search-method-02
>
> Please indicate whether you support adoption in response to this e-mail;
> information about intent to implement (or use) it is also useful.
>
> The Call for Adoption will end on 18 November 2020.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mark and Tommy
>
>
>